DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2004-022
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The BCMR docketed the
applicant’s request for correction on November 10, 2003.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated July 27, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct the term of an extension contract in his
record dated June 10, 2002, from four months to two months. The applicant alleged that
he signed the four-month contract in order to obligate sufficient service to attend AVT
“A” School. However, he was sent to an earlier session of the school, one which would
have required only a two-month extension.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of the four-month
extension contract, which shows that the reason for the extension was to obligate
sufficient service for a “school/training requirement.” He also submitted a copy of his
travel orders, which show that he was to attend AVT “A” School from September 30,
2002, to February 14, 2003, and that he was required to have 31 months of obligated
service upon reporting to the school, in accordance with Article 2.A.2.a.(11) of the Coast
Guard Training and Education Manual. In addition, he submitted a copy of a certificate
showing that he satisfactorily completed AVT “A” School on February 14, 2003.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
On July 31, 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years,
through July 30, 2005. On June 10, 2002, he extended his enlistment for four months,
through November 30, 2005, to obligate sufficient service to attend school. The appli-
cant attended AVT “A” School from September 30, 2002, to February 14, 2003.
Figure 2-2 of the Training and Education Manual indicates that members attend-
ing “A” School for 19 weeks are required to have 31 months of obligated service after
completion of the school. Article 2.A.2.a.(11) of the manual provides that “[t]his period
of obligated service will commence on the date of graduation from “A” school.
Applicant’s [sic] not having the necessary active duty obligated service requirement for
“A” school remaining on their present contract, must reenlist or sign an Agreement to
Extend Enlistment to cover the required period prior to departing their unit for school.”
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On March 16, 2004, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s
request. He based his recommendation on a memorandum on the case prepared by the
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).
CGPC stated that under Article 2.A.2.a.(11) of the Training and Education
Manual, members completing a class “A” school with a duration of 19 weeks must have
a minimum of 31 months of obligated service remaining prior to reporting for school.
CGPC stated that the applicant’s extension contract was prepared based on a projected
start date for the school, but “the applicant’s class “A” school convened earlier than
anticipated.” Because the applicant completed “A” School on February 14, 2003, CGPC
stated, he need only have obligated service through September 30, 2005. Therefore,
CGPC recommended that the Board correct the term of the applicant’s extension
contract to two months.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On March 17, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days. No response was received.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and appli-
cable law:
1.
2.
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of
10 U.S.C. § 1552. The application was timely.
The applicant attended AVT “A” School from September 30, 2002, to
February 14, 2003. Although this period is 20 weeks long, CGPC stated that the training
lasted for 19 weeks in total.1 In accordance with Figure 2-2 and Article 2.A.2.a.(11) of
the Training and Education Manual, members such as the applicant who attend “A”
School for 19 weeks are required to have 31 months of obligated service remaining
upon the date of graduation. Therefore, to attend the school, the applicant was required
to have obligated service through September 14, 2005.
The termination date of the applicant’s original enlistment contract was
July 30, 2005. Therefore, to attend the school, he need only have extended his enlist-
ment for two months, from July 31, 2005, to September 30, 2005.
The applicant alleged and CGPC admitted that the applicant signed the
four-month extension contract based on a projected start date for the “A” School that
was erroneous in that the school actually began about two months earlier than
anticipated. The Board finds that the term of the extension contract is therefore in error
and that the applicant is entitled to the correction he has requested.
Accordingly, relief should be granted.
5.
3.
4.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
1 The Board assumes that there was a one-week school holiday in December.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
record is granted. The Coast Guard shall correct the term of his extension contract
dated June 10, 2002, from four months to two months.
Quang D. Nguyen
Darren S. Wall
Eric J. Young
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-133
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his enlistment This final decision dated April 8, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS The applicant alleged that the August 27, 2004 end of enlistment date established by the Coast Guard is in error and unjust because he never attended AMT Class "A" School, which was the purpose of an 11-month extension he signed on March 22, 2001. On March 22, 2001, he extended his enlistment for 11...
of the Coast Guard Training and Education Manual, before reporting to “A” school on January 22, 2000, she needed to obligate sufficient service — 19 more months — to complete the 14 weeks of school and have 26 months remaining on her enlistment upon completion of the school.3 Therefore, the applicant is entitled to have the term of her January 20, 2000, extension contract corrected to 19 months. The Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled regarding her SRB eligibility,...
This final decision, dated May 19, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he enlisted in the Regular Coast Guard on November 3, 1998, for four years, rather than six, and then reenlisted on November 3, 2002, for six years, to receive a Zone A SRB. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on April 20, 1998, for a period of eight years...
Moreover, he stated, even if the applicant had reenlisted or extended his enlistment for six years on that date or any time prior to the end of his enlistment on October 24, 1998, he would not have received an SRB because none was authorized for members in the AVT rating. of Enclosure (1) provides that, to be eligible to receive an SRB, the member must sign a reenlistment or extension contract of at least three years while an ALDIST authorizing an SRB for his rating is in effect. Nor were...
By that time, ALCOAST 182/03 was in effect and the SRB multiple for MK2s in Zone A was just 1.5.5 In support of his allegations, the applicant pointed out that his command failed to have him sign a CG-3307 (“page 7”) to acknowledge receiving proper SRB counseling when he signed the one-year extension contract on November 18, 2002. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was miscounseled in November 2002 that, if he extended...
This final decision, dated April 15, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2.5 instead of the 2.0 multiple he actually received. Coast Guard members who have at least 6 but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. This provision...
The applicant, who was a reservist on extended active duty (EAD)2 at the time of her enlistment/reenlistment into the regular Coast Guard, alleged that she is entitled to the SRB because her previous active duty service causes her enlistment to be characterized as a reenlistment. The enlistment of Coast Guard Reserve personnel who are serving on extended active duty and who have served on extended active duty for 12 months or more shall be considered a reenlistment.” member must meet the...
2 Obligated service refers to all periods of military service covered by signed agreements in the form of enlistment contracts, reenlistment contracts and/or agreements to extend enlistment between Coast Guard members and the U.S. Coast Guard where members agree to serve for designated periods of time. When he received transfer orders in June 2003, the applicant should have been required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty (four years) before accepting the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-152
In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on May 2, 2003, he was not advised that because he was signing an indefinite reenlistment it was his last opportunity to sell leave until he retired from the Coast Guard. In that case, the JAG recommended that the Board grant relief because there was no evidence in the applicant’s record that he was counseled about the lump sum leave policy when he signed the indefinite reenlistment contract. CGPC stated in...
In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on May 2, 2003, he was not advised that because he was signing an indefinite reenlistment it was his last opportunity to sell leave until he retired from the Coast Guard. In that case, the JAG recommended that the Board grant relief because there was no evidence in the applicant’s record that he was counseled about the lump sum leave policy when he signed the indefinite reenlistment contract. CGPC stated in...